About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
or doma. the cases aren't expected to be decided until next june, the fact that they're weighing in on the debate will have a national effect. back at the table. kenji yoshino. donna edwards, bob herbert and joining us is ray kerry. the executive director of the guy and lesbian task force. i'm going to you kenji, you're always here to set my constitutional framework for me. it's going to be two cases, right? what's at issue in the two separate cases. >> i should do them in the order you presented them. the prop 8 case is about a state ban on same-sex marriage. so there are equal protection and due process challenges. what that means is, this violates the fundamental right of fairness of streeting gay and straight couples the same. you're denying us the fundamental right to marriage. there's a quality component and a rights component to it. if the supreme court goes big on that case, it could guarantee same-sex marriage as a law of the land. flipping the 41 states that currently don't have it and requiring them to have it. i don't think that's going to happen. on the other hand, i
the federal defense of marriage act, or d doma, and another involving california's proposition 8, banning same-sex marriages in that state. for analysis into these historic cases, what's going to be a historic hearing, i want to bring in kinji yoshityoshito, professor of constitutional law at new york city. great to see you. >> good to see you. >> put prop 8 aside for a second. do you believe that the supreme court will strike down doma. this is what what you've said. walk me through your thinking on that one. >> y bet. so doma is a really narrow challenge insofar as what the statute does is it says for federal purposes marriages are defined between one man and one woman. so i think it might be best to clarify this by example. so you take edie windsor, a plaintiff coming out of new york who's going to be the plaintiff in this case. she was with another woman for 40 years. they got married in 2007. when her partner passed away, her wife passed away, for state purposes, in the eyes of new york state, she was next of kin. so her remains were released to edie. but for federal purposes, they were c
for the time being? >> reporter: you know, that's the interesting question here. we don't know. the doma case doesn't invite the court to answer that question. it simple says if in those states that decide to grant same-sex marriage, which is up to the states, can the federal government still refuse to recognize those marriages? even if the supreme court strikes down the doma law, it won't say anything about whether a state has to allow same-sex marriage. on the prop 8 case it is possible to rule on that case very narrowly or broadly. let me explain. when the court of appeals said that prop 8 was unconstitutional, it said you can't do what california did. you can't give the right, which the california supreme court did, and then take it away, which prop 8 did. california's the only state that did that. if the supreme court barely upholds the court of appeals ruling, that would be good for california only. if the supreme court dives fully into in and gets into the basic constitutional question about whether states can block same-sex marriage, then, yes, they would get to it. they won't -- the
as well, as you know, that will be overcome. >> the other case involves doma, defense of marriage act. what's at the heart of that question? >> not the fundamental right of same-sex marriage but whether the federal government can define marriage in a certain way, as between one man and one woman. historically that's been the job of the states to decide what marriage is, to define it. that really is the federal government stepping somewhere where it hasn't before. what they have done with that statute is say people can't have thousands of federal benefits. the case before the supreme court involves a woman who had to pay $363,000 in estate taxes she wouldn't have had to pay just because the person she was married to was the same gender as herself. it's fairness but limbed to that one state. >> patricia, always good to see you. thanks for weighing in. >> thank you. >> the deadline for the fiscal cliff is just over three weeks away. lawmakers are still mired in part in gridlock, each side saying the other is to blame. what do their constituents think? cnbc says 21% would blame the presid
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)